Werewolf MUSTS

Darksong17 · Post by **Darksong17** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:38 am

Good CGI! Can walk on all fours or two legs, tails, fur, and a good transformation! To often these things are overlooked!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:50 pm

Well, we don't even know if these folks are going to be using CGI at all. We don't know what thier budget is after all.

CGI isn't even really neccesery either. You can do some amazing things with prostetics and make-up if you know exactly what you're aiming for.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:13 pm

True.. an American Werewolf In London was excellent for it's time. I think at least some CGI would be nice but it isn't necissary to have a lot of it if the make up jobs and what not are really good

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:20 pm

Oops.. this and the above comment is me (Darksong17) by the way. I'm not logged in on this computer and I can't figure out how to delete the post ^^;;

Calypso Blue · Post by **Calypso Blue** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:49 pm

From what I can tell, they're experimenting with both types, trying to find the best mix. CG, makeup.. I'm hearing there might be tests that I can post here. I'll let you know more when I get that far.

I'll say this much. I know the success of this site has made them talk about pushing up the budget. Don't know by how much or anything. But its still something worth mentioning.

CB

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:52 pm

Both CGI and prostetics both have their ups and downs.

CGI looks more impressive, but nowadays it seems overhyped and it can steal the spotlight from the actors and storyline. And of course, sometimes it just looks pathetic (is it me, or did the transformation scenes in Darkwolf look like something from a PS1 game?).

Prostetics are reusable and easier for the on-stage actors to interact with, but when it comes to werewolves, you need a lot of shadows and/or single-frame shots to keep them from looking stupid.

On the whole though... Well, if I recall correctly, the same people that are working on this movie are the same people that did Spy Kids, so I think some good quality CGI won't be too much of a problem for them.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:22 pm

Well part of the problem with CGI is, that when it's used, the instinct is to show it off. This creates two problems, first, if you show it off then you run the risk of the audience picking apart piece by piece what they don't like about about the graphic.

Another issue is, that in horror films, you don't want to cooperate with the audience more then you have to. The imagination is typically better then any speciel effect out there, and the more the audience relies on thier own imagination, the more frieghtening things become.

Finally, there's the practical aspect, CGI like in Van Helsing, is pretty darn expensive. Chances are the budget on this film will be, far more constrained, so while we all might want to see a realistically designed Werewolf in CGI, it'd be far more cost effective to use prostetics, make up effects and stuff like that.

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:44 pm

Actually, CGI doesn't have to be that expensive. The CGI-animated movie Kaze: Ghost Warrior budgeted for around $5,000. It's really less of a question of price and more of a matter of effort.

Of course, there's nothing to say the movie couldn't implement both CGI and prostetics (CGI for action sequences, prostetics for close contact scenes), or even a combo of the two (when they did the disco scene in Scooby Doo 2, for example, they used a stuntwoman and CGIed over her head.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:59 pm

Kaze: Ghost Warrior was the effort of one man, basically a film somebody made because computer generation is his hobby. (That's my understanding at least.)

In his case, he didn't have to pay anybody else the labor and I imagine quite a few other costs were cut out as well.

It is theoretically possible to get CGI done for fairly cheap, however, it won't match the quality of CGI in films like Vanhelsing.

So yes, if it is used, it'll have to be used for scenes that couldn't be done by prostetics and such. That way it keeps costs down somewhat and doesn't place too much emphasis on the computerized speciel effects.

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:39 pm

Actually, it was made a one-man project because Jason Albee had pitched his idea to various networks, including CGI tycoons like Pixar and DreamWorks, most of which were enthusiastic to start filming, but the average price they budgeted the film at came to $2,000,000, which he thought was extremely overpriced. Computer animation was a hobby of his beforehand, but he took the whole project upon himself to prove to the networks that a thousand-man crew charging millions of dollars wasn't necessary for a great movie; just a small team with lots of dedication.

Again, it's not really a matter of cost -- rather how it's executed. Van Helsing had a ton of work and money put into it, but honestly I thought the CGI work on the werewolf was pretty crappy. They didn't really make a character with him -- they just tried to be as flashy as possible with the werewolf's fancy footwork. The same thing happened with Darkwolf: they put so much effort into creating a spectacular transformation sequence that they forgot to give the darkwolf some character.

Maybe the problem with CGI is that we're so accustomed to seeing CGI used to make Godzilla-sized monsters and big explosions. It can also be used to render realistic emotions that would otherwise be impossible for a prostetic head to manage (you can only include so many moving parts before they start to either grind against each other or overweigh the actor's neck). Prostetics are great when you want the werewolf to be acting at rest or in contact with an actor, but for the sake of a realistic look, it's best to use a blend of prostetics and CGI. Too much prostetics can make moving around a pain for whoever's wearing the costume, so the most active portions of the werewolf's body -- his head and tail most notably -- would look best as CGI.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:10 pm

The amount of prosthetics and CGI needed varies drastically depending on what sort of movie you're making.

For example, in a horror/slashed film, when most the shots are likely to take place at night, it's not very likely that the audience will get all that good a look at the werewolf.

On the flip side, if the film is an action film or a film where the werewolf is an actual character that spends a good decent amount of time on the screen, then the amount of CGI you need suddenly goes up a bit.

My instinct when it comes to said technology is that it should be used primarily when there isn't any other practical way to do what you want to do.

Something else that should be pointed out, wolves really don't have a very wide array of facial expressions when compared to humans. It is true that a werewolf would have more then a wolf's, but even then, you don't necessarily need to you every possible emotion, especially if this is a horror/slashed picture.

Now, I know this may sound stingy, but, from what I understand ReQuest is an independent film studio, and probably has limited resources. The more money they spend on this film, the less likely they’ll be able to make a profit, this in turn, makes it more difficult for them to make more films in the future.

NightmareHero · Post by **NightmareHero** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:11 pm

Firstly, I don't know what equipment this FX team has, but from what I could tell from the preview on their main site, the have Lightwave, which is a VERY powerfull CG rendering and animation suite.

If the werewolves are to move around and be shot full body, then CGI is a must, also, nowadays its easier with the advent of particle hair to animate growing fur, so prostethics wouldn't necessarily be needed, save for a person with some transformed body part.

I would prefer the transformation scene to be CGI with a model mesh of the actor/actress face pasted on the model when transformed.

But oh well, that all depends on the budget for this movie.

kita · Post by **kita** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 7:59 pm

the head another major part of a werewolf it should look actually like a wolfs head none of that stubb nosed pigme stuff

akujiwolf · Post by **akujiwolf** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:18 am

Terastas wrote:Both CGI and prostetics both have their ups and downs.

CGI looks more impressive, but nowadays it seems overhyped and it can steal the spotlight from the actors and storyline. And of course, sometimes it just looks pathetic (is it me, or did the transformation scenes in Darkwolf look like something from a PS1 game?).

Prostetics are reusable and easier for the on-stage actors to interact with, but when it comes to werewolves, you need a lot of shadows and/or single-frame shots to keep them from looking stupid.

On the whole though... Well, if I recall correctly, the same people that are working on this movie are the same people that did Spy Kids, so I think some good quality CGI won't be too much of a problem for them.

Uh, that's sort of a half truth. Re-Quest is no way affiliated with spy kids, however the director knows the people that worked on the CGI with spy kids.

LoupGarou · Post by **LoupGarou** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:34 am

Good point about lighting the werewolf,in most movies it is very hard to see the werewolf's full feature,they managed in underworld to show the whole body but the lighting wasn;t enough to to really look at the details,so all the blood and sweat they put in the details are basically impossible for us to see.
So it woud be kind of refreshing to look a the whole structure for once.

Apokryltaros · Post by **Apokryltaros** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:16 am

kita wrote:the head another major part of a werewolf it should look actually like a wolfs head none of that stubb nosed pigme stuff

That they want the werewolf to look wolf-like, and not like Lon Chaney Jr needs no further emphasis.

Shadu · Post by **Shadu** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:50 am

i won't stress the fact of ups and downs cause all things have those. the importnt thing here is how its used and (i feel its necesary) mixed. i'm new here and i don't know yet if the movie is horror, sci-fi, action etc, but i can safely say they should think on using both. in , for example, a horror movie, CGI can easyly make a scene where the werewolf is by itself, hidden or changing a very spectacular scene. .i think in close contact scenes a real person works better than CGI and it means the prostetics have to be good enough so that viewers don't see the difference. i dunno i feel its hard to make a CGI werewolf breathing close to someone make that someone well act as he/she should. but then again i'm no movie maker so i don't know.

Mr_Lycos · Post by **Mr_Lycos** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:06 pm

Theres no such thing as "Good CG"

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:12 pm

Mr_Lycos wrote:Theres no such thing as "Good CG"

Sure there is. There is alot of Bad CG, and a fair amount of Good CG, but so far, there is no such thing as Exelent, "you can't tell it's not real" CG.

...maybe someday.

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:14 pm

Well, if nobody likes CG, you can always go back to claymation.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:18 pm

Figarou wrote:Well, if nobody likes CG, you can always go back to claymation.

I like CG...
...when it is not abused.

BTW...Claymation Rules!!! ( "Wallace and Gromit" crack me up.

)

Apokryltaros · Post by **Apokryltaros** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:19 pm

Figarou wrote:Well, if nobody likes CG, you can always go back to claymation.

We could use stop-motion werewolves, even.

ShadowFang · Post by **ShadowFang** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:40 am

Mr_Lycos wrote:Theres no such thing as "Good CG"

C'on...you have to admin, Van Helsing had the best CG werewolves I've (and many other people) have ever seen!

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:45 am

ShadowFang wrote:
Mr_Lycos wrote:Theres no such thing as "Good CG"
C'on...you have to admin, Van Helsing had the best CG werewolves I've (and many other people) have ever seen!

The 1st werewolf and the last. I didn't like what they did with Velken.

Apokryltaros · Post by **Apokryltaros** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:57 am

Mr_Lycos wrote:Theres no such thing as "Good CG"

I strongly disagree with your comment, as the CG in Jurassic Park was superb. Apparently, not too many people seemed to notice that most of the dinosaurs in the movie were CG.

Besides, if we were to deny ReQuest Studios the option of CG, then, what other option, or options for special effects would you recommend they use instead?

THE PACK Message Boards

Werewolf MUSTS

Werewolf MUSTS

heres what I know so far.